Wiendish Fitch

I only like Joan Cusack as Jessie the Cowgirl. Other than that, her twitchy, spastic face (seriously, you'd swear she was mocking someone with Tourette's) irritates me to no end.

THANK. YOU. Your post brings back awful memories of my days as Barnes & Noble/library employee. It frightened me how people were such sheep about books. They didn't want to read them because they were genuinely interested, they wanted to read them because they were new, popular and someone on TV told them to read them. My UO is that I never ask for book recommendations. Nope, never. I know what I like, I know my interests, so I always know what I want to read, and why.

Christopher Lee and Ron Moody on the same day. So sad, but such colorful lives and fascinating actors. Lee was such an icon, and he won't soon be forgotten. It's a shame Moody's career never blossomed the way it should have after Oliver! (he also made the mistake of turning down the opportunity to play the Third Doctor), but, wow, what a performance. His portrayal of Fagin is so zesty and memorable, he, let's face it, makes everyone else seem kind of pedestrian and blah by comparison.

While I agree it's a shame she died, does it make me an evil person if I admit that I never found Farrah Fawcett attractive, and she looks, quite frankly, terrifying in that iconic poster?

I hate it when people say "these ones" or "those ones". "These" and "those" imply the "ones" in question, so it sounds ignorant and redundant. Unfortunately, I think it's considered grammatically acceptable, and it makes me want to rip my hair out.

I think Anna Kendrick is funnier than Jennifer Lawrence. Sorry.

For me, it depends on who's touching me, where, and how. I don't mind hugs, I think hugs are great. Now, skeevy old men I don't know who always try to lead me away by the elbow? Not cool. Guys who stand too close? Not cool. People who, instead of politely saying "excuse me", proceed to grab you by the hips and maneuver you out of their way as though you're a cardboard cutout? Definitely, undeniably not cool! This happened to me twice when I was doing a community theatre play. One guy backstage tried to get me out of the way with the hip grabbing (there is no reason why he couldn't just ask me to move). I must have given him an impressive look, because he quickly apologized. Another time, another guy tried it... and grabbed a bit too low. Yup, damn near cupped my ass. Now, I'm ashamed to say I'm not the most assertive woman I know, but I was so disgusted by this insult to my dignity I spun around and snarled, Mercedes McCambridge from The Exorcist style, "DON'T DO THAT!" I'm pleased to say that he never did, and it was years before he even made eye contact with me again. It's not a regional thing, either. I live in the South, but I've seen a Noo Yawker do it, too. It's simply a rude person thing. Moral of the story? Unless you're a cop chasing a suspect or a paramedic who desperately needs to reach someone, just say "excuse me" and keep your grubby hands to yourself.

I will own that one of my worst traits is being too soft-hearted, but I still feel the need to vent about one trope that bothers me: I hate it when good and decent (or, at least, comparatively good and decent) characters are bullied, mistreated, abused, mislead, deceived (or all of the above)... and they are never once allowed to get any of their own back. They never grow a backbone and fight back, or find out the truth and call the person on it, the abuser never suffers any consequences, the victim is just a victim, and that's it. The Family Stone has been brought up about a million times already, but it bears repeating; in the movie, poor Meredith (whose biggest crime is being kind of uptight) never is allowed to get even with the people who mistreated her, they never truly apologize, all they get is a half-hearted lecture, stupid kitchen hijinks, and, boom, everything is hunky-dory. Meet the Parents was also like this, in which Greg never successfully stands up for himself, and Jack never truly sees the error of his ways. In fact, Greg's undeserved systematic abuse and humiliation goes on for two more movies. Hannah and Her Sisters had our sweet, titular character's worthless husband Elliot cheats on her (with her sister!), and Hannah is never allowed to find out, get angry, throw Elliot on his ass, and get some of her own back. Nope, she never finds out. Elliot even has the balls to criticize her character, accusing her of "not having enough needs", then the affair ends, and he feels absolutely no remorse about it. As a result, Hannah looks like a foolish, gullible doormat (I'm not saying she is, I'm just saying one could make that observation). She is also mooched on by her whiny, no-talent sister Holly, who never once shows an ounce of gratitude for Hannah's help, and who is actually framed as right and sympathetic for being like this. Now, back to the whole systematic abuse of someone, one movie that gets it right is the classic Auntie Mame. Towards the end, Auntie Mame throws an engagement party for her nephew and his new fiancee and future in-laws. The fiancee is a shallow bore, and the parents are unimaginative snobs. Certainly undesirable qualities, but these aren't why Auntie Mame sets up an elaborate scheme to embarrass and intimidate them. The real reason? The future in-laws aren't just unlikable, they're genuinely bad people! They're unrepentant anti-Semites who cheerfully endorse building restricted neighborhoods and clubs, and are baffled as to why no one agrees with them! They're vile bigots, and deserve every bit of awful treatment of Auntie Mame heaps on them! See the difference? Again, I'm probably just an ignorant goody-goody, but I hate the feeling of Genovese Syndrome I have when watching good people get treated like dirty tissues in movies! Now, when assholes get served slice after slice of humble pie? That's just karma.

I hate Terms of Endearment, too. Aurora and Emma both grated my nerves, and I feel it started that loathsome trend of shaming the audience into liking an insufferable character by having them die of some vague, cancer-like illness (the absolutely horrid The Family Stone also employs this tactic). A good writer shouldn't care all that much whether or not people like their characters, and I'm sure not going to like them more just because they croak. Sorry, but the fact that Emma died didn't alter how irritatingly shrill, immature, and not even all that interesting she was to me. You want to write unlikable characters? Fine! It takes all kinds, but don't you dare try to manipulate my opinion on them with cheap sentimentality and Love Story-variety tearjerking!

I think Gilda is a fantastic film noir, and Rita Hayworth is unforgettable (I hold the UO she had it all over Marilyn Monroe), but I really wish Gilda and Johnny hadn't reconciled in the end. It's not just that it feels pat and phony (and, boy howdy, does it ever), but I'm always amazed at what a reprehensible little shit Johnny is. Aside from the fact that he's a weasel and a thug who long ago ground his moral compass to dust under his heel, but the way he systematically piles mental abuse on Gilda during their marriage is kind of horrifying. No joke, most villains from Hitchcock films don't behave the way Johnny does. It doesn't help matters any that Glenn Ford had one of the original punchable faces. Now, does Gilda wise up, steal away into the night, never to return, potential future bigamy charges be damned? No! She actually tells Johnny, "there's no need to apologize! We've both been stinkers!" The hell? Lady, you did nothing wrong! You cheated on your abusive, psycho husband, wined and dined with men, danced and sang provocatively... that's really it! You have nothing to apologize for, whereas Johnny has everything to apologize for! And I know I'll get lectured that "it was the 1940s, it was a different time!", but I don't think that negates my point.

Spartacus is the only Kubrick film I have any interest in ever re-visiting; ironic, considering that Kubrick hated it and rarely talked about it later on.

I'm pasty and proud of it. Every spring and summer, I wear sunscreen (SPF 30 or higher) and a sun hat between 9 a.m. (yup, I'm so pale, I have to use sunscreen that early) and 3 p.m. Yeah, I'm not outdoors all that much, and I probably look a little nutty, but I don't care. I'm of Irish-British ancestry, and, believe you me, the sun is NOT my friend. I once got a sunburn on my chest at 6 in the evening, which actually isn't that unusual, but still... I have gotten grief in the past; I once had a lady say to me, "You need to get a tan! You're too pale!" When I related this anecdote, someone snarked, "Too pale for what?!" My mom also gets on my case, saying that I'm losing out on vitamin D (not true), but I still remain vigilant. Even if I wanted to tan, I would either get burned, or just get a butt-ugly farmer's tan. And don't get me started on spray-tans or tanning beds. Why on earth would anyone voluntarily pay to look like an Oompah-Loompah or be roasted alive in a dirty tanning bed (or, as I like to call 'em, "cancer ovens")?

Thanks for that, Julia, and all I can say is, good ol' Clint!

From the Dream Costars thread: Older actors/younger actress pairings are nothing new, but comparing how it was done in Old Hollywood as opposed to now, they could pull it off much better then, because people (especially women) matured earlier. Remember, Humphrey Bogart was a whopping quarter of a century older than Lauren Bacall! Hell, she was only 19 when she made To Have and Have Not! But when you watch the movie, it's astonishing how poised she is, she really does seem like a woman with experience. Of course, you could chalk that up to good acting, but I have to credit to the fact that back then, once you were 18, you were a bona fide woman. Today, 18 means "Men can think you're hot and not be called perverts!", but back then? It meant you had to start behaving like an adult, and start preparing yourself for responsibilities like marriage and children. Jane Greer was only 22 when she made Out of the Past, but she is miles ahead of today's twentysomethings (and even thirtysomethings) in terms of womanly grace. For God's sake, I'm 33, and I have resigned myself to the fact that I'll never have that kind of confident maturity or poise. When I watch Bogie and Bacall, or Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly in High Noon, or Fred Astaire and Cyd Charrisse in The Band Wagon, I never think of the age difference, because the women in those films are equal to the men in terms of maturity. Then the youth obsession in the 1960s, the "never trust anyone over 30" bullshit by Timothy Leary (who was way over 30 when he said that, FYI), ruined all that. Suddenly, you had to be an eternal teenager, no matter how old you were. Maturity became an unattractive quality. Then came the man-child craze that became popular comparatively recently, and that's where we are now. That's why big age differences between actors no longer work. No one is particularly mature anymore, adults acting like an adult doesn't appeal to Hollywood's target audience, so when a 40-year-old man is paired a 20-year-old woman, it feels like an icky old pervert getting with an impressionable girl. Mind you, I think we should move past the whole older actor/younger actress pairing (unless they really are great together, then I might make an exception). Yes, I did hear about the Maggie Gyllenhaal incident, and I find it appalling (but, at the same time, not very surprising).

Not to mention she and Christian Bale played lovers, and they're the same age. Hell, his character cheated on his much younger wife (Jennifer Lawrence) for Adams! I wasn't crazy about American Hustle on the whole, but I did find that aspect immensely refreshing. Will carry rest of this train of thought to Gender thread.

I've said it before, I'm sayin' it again: Daniel Day-Lewis and Michael Fassbender as father and son. I want this to happen. Now. David Oyelowo and Gugu Mbatha-Raw in... something, anything, because they're too pretty not to be paired up. Same with Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain.

Alicia Vikander has projects left and right, and I'm glad. She was a revelation in Ex Machina, in both her portrayal and her physicality.

I basically hate the Disposable Love Interest trope. Have you noticed it never makes our protagonist look good? Think about it: 1. If he/she is so boring to you, why did you ever get together with them? Surely there must have been something that attracted you to begin with. 2. If he/she is a jerk (not necessarily abusive, but unpleasant)... see above. Why would you want to be with someone like that? What attracted you to them? 3. If the new love interest is so capable of making you drop your former boyfriend/girlfriend without a pang of remorse, that doesn't reflect well on you, because how do we know your head won't be turned in the future? This trope worked fine in Old Hollywood films, when a woman's main purpose in life was to get married, but nowadays, ladies (gentlemen, too), you don't have to get married or commit to someone you find repellant! You have options!

In the original Jem cartoon, Jerrica was, oh, I'm guessing 19-23 years old, but she was comparatively sophisticated and had adult responsibilities (living on her own, running a foster home, being Jem). The Jerrica in the movie cannot be 17 years old, and doesn't seem to have a care in the world. Has youth obsession reached such a level that 19-23 is considered old, or at least too old to attract your target audience? I mean, I watched reruns of Jem as a kid (I'm 33) and I never, ever noticed the characters' ages, because it was never an issue for me. At 6 or 7 years old, there were three ages to me: baby, kid, grownup. It was wonderfully uncomplicated. But now? Apparently the screenwriters don't think kids today want capable, self-assured adult Jerrica/Jem who, in the first two episodes of Jem (it's on Netflix Streaming), attempts home renovation, confronts Eric Raymond about taking over Starlight Music without even flinching, finds Synergy, figures out she works, forms Jem and the Holograms, outsmarts Raymond at the Battle of the Bands, saves the foster kids when their house burns down, and finds them a new home. First two episodes!! No, they want mopey, whiny, helpless teenager Jerrica, whose Jem persona is thrust upon her because heaven forbid female protagonists of any age have any agency to call their own.

Hey, I agree, and please believe that I'm not trying to body-shame anyone. I couldn't care less how big or small a woman's butt is. I'm just sick of how society insists on women being recognized for their bodies and nothing else. Not their brains, talent, humor, personalities, beliefs, hopes, dreams, nope, it's all about that bass, 'bout that bass... And these women are perpetuating that mindset! Look, it's wonderful they're confident and that they embrace their bodies, I applaud that, but there is so much more to women than our bodies! Don't let your ass, your thighs, your abs, your hips or whatever be your defining trait. Ladies, celebrate the whole you, not just the physical. If you don't, no one will.

Frankly, I'm sick of all the celebration of the ass. To Nicki, Beyonce, J-Lo, Meghan, and everyone else, a little advice: somewhere down the line, that butt you're so proud of is going to take a permanent trip down south, and once it does, you're going to have nothing left to offer the world. And you're going to be very, very sorry you didn't nurture the qualities that don't decline with age.

Fair enough. And, yes, Stanley is definitely supposed to be attractive. Young Marlon Brando was just right for the part. John C. Reilly, though? I guess he'd make a good Mitch, but when Karl Malden gives you a run for your money in the looks department, you have no business playing Stanley. I'm 33, pretty much the right age (they showed tons of reruns in the early '90s), and, wow, am I appalled. First off, where the hell is Synergy?! How can you have Jem and the Holograms without Synergy? Why is Jerrica a mopey teenager instead of a self-assured adult running an orphanage? As if the ageism angle weren't bad enough, heaven forbid we have a confident protagonist! Where is deliciously smarmy rival record executive Eric Raymond? Why doesn't Rio have purple hair? And where in the seven veils of Salome are the Misfits?!! It's bad enough you got rid of Synergy, but now the Misfits are gone? Were they afraid that having antagonists would be too depressing? What's next? Othello without Iago? Snow White without the Evil Queen?

It's not that I'm against Beast turning back into a human (otherwise, what kind of relationship could he and Belle have?), but... that was the best they could do? To be fair, though, the Beast-turned-Prince in the 1946 Cocteau version is a thousand times worse (they put him in a dippy, garish costume, and he's wearing more make-up than Belle). Let's hope the good folks at Disney can make Dan Stevens equally desirable as both the Beast and the Prince in the upcoming live action version.

Fair points, everyone. However, I must point out that Rupert is just as guilty of the same awful qualities as Eve (entitlement, greed, delusions of grandeur, determination to take the path of least resistance). He also fakes friendliness with Jerry Langford, not because he wants to be pals with his idol, but because he thinks Jerry will be a willing and eager stepping stone to fame and fortune. He has no qualms about muscling into Jerry's weekend home (that scene baffles me, because you'd think the security would be better), and, oh, yeah, taking him hostage at gunpoint and demanding a spot on his show. So many things could have gone wrong; what if the situation caused Jerry to have a heart attack and die? It's not impossible, and Rupert would have been culpable for manslaughter if that had happened. What if a bunch inept/trigger happy cops located where Jerry was, and started shooting? What if Masha, who's just as whacko as Rupert, finally snapped and decided to kill Jerry just for shits and giggles? On top of that, Rupert proved to be a pathological liar (I don't believe his stories about his abusive dad, or even that he's 34) and a basement dwelling burden on his poor mother, not to mention he isn't above badgering and intimidating people at Jerry's office, ignoring Jerry's sound advice about starting from the bottom, or kidnapping and terrorizing people to get what he wants. Rupert is just as phony, self-serving, and dangerous as Eve, and yet so many people defend him, saying he's just a "lovable loser, that "all he needs is a shot". There are even people who paint Jerry as the villain, saying he's just a paranoid jerk, even though I don't remember him doing a single thing wrong, and that he got to where he is through talent and hard work. I think Rupert is a creepy, horrible, deluded, untalented miscreant, but I will hand it to Scorcese; The King of Comedy is one of the most alarmingly prescient films ever made in regards to the parasitic fame-whores who clog today's popular culture.

I second that, and the same goes for Boy Meets World. Here's the thing: nostalgia has always influenced pop culture in some way or another, but I think it now holds far too much sway. Re-booting Duck Tales and Full House, the remakes of, or sequels to, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Mad Max, The Terminator, Poltergeist, it's gotten so ludicrous. I don't necessarily get nostalgic for my childhood TV favorites. I liked them... in childhood. I'm an adult now, and to be honest, I'm kind of embarrassed at the things I used to like, and would rather forget them. The only show I like revisiting from my youth is Daria, and that was more high school than anything else.